Did you even watch the game? We were knocking Luck around hard all game until Raji went down, after which we didn't get any interior push which allowed for doubleteams on Matthews. Heck, after a full game of what he went through in the first half I was wondering if we were going to send that kid to the hospital. He got whalloped more than a couple times.

This D Line isn't going to get many sacks, it's all about our linebackers... But it's hard for the linebackers to get home if the D line isn't generating interior pressure, and that starts with Raji.

Yes, I did. Why would you even ask such a question? Pickett, Worthy, Wilson and Neal had their asses handed to them, by an interior made up of 2nd and 3rd string OL.

"However, the Colts were far worse off starting the game, and with their ragtag roster it should have been too much for them to overcome against what was thought to be a playoff-caliber team.

Not only were they missing their two left guards, the starting center sat out and right guard Mike McGlynn left early in the third quarter. His replacement, Tony Hills, was activated Saturday from the practice squad after being with the Colts for 19 days." http://www.jsonline.com/...s/packers/173026821.html

Luck was sacked 4 times, all in the 1st half. Neal did a great job getting his. No other DL got a sack. Only 4 QB hits and only 5 tackles between the 5 that played, that includes Raji. Everybody disappeared in the 2nd half. By rights, this group of Pick, Worthy, Neal and Wilson should have buried Luck in the 2nd half. It didn't happen. Seems we lose every time we keep Daniels inactive. I was hoping Ted would keep more beef here. Instead, he went pretty thin on our DL. Now, when a guy like Raji goes down, we have no back up. Makes no sense to me.

The DL is just one group that underperformed in my opinion. There is bigger blame to go around, but being a team game, they cannot just disappear for an entire half and expect their team to win.

The level of play overall from them, yes, yes they are. Some of that is in direct relationship to the guy calling the offensive plays.

Defensively, overall, I think they have done a fair job overall with some of the situations they have been put into.

Offensively, I think they have to really look deep to what the opponents are taking away and adjust until they force the defense to come up and respect the run and screens. That means Mike McCarthy has to alter how he is calling plays, albeit I think he intended to be balanced yesterday until Benson was out.

Personally, I think Mike McCarthy performance more so than the teams has been the issue. And the team is a reflection of the head coach and his staff.

So would have to agree, through week five they are Mediocre at best.

Yep. We could be 4-1. We should be 4-1. We could just as easily be 1-4. I think this team is playing more like the 1-4 than 4-1. Severely underperforming, and that points to coaching and a lack of preparation and discipline in execution.

Dropped passes by great WRs and TEs. Dropped INTs by great DBs and Ss. Ineffective OL play and even worse, horrific play calling has Rodgers running for his life. This is a really ugly start, but I'm not giving up as a fan. The team is better than they are showing now. McCarthy needs to get them back on track.

Yes, I did. Why would you even ask such a question? Pickett, Worthy, Wilson and Neal had their asses handed to them, by an interior made up of 2nd and 3rd string OL.

"However, the Colts were far worse off starting the game, and with their ragtag roster it should have been too much for them to overcome against what was thought to be a playoff-caliber team.

Not only were they missing their two left guards, the starting center sat out and right guard Mike McGlynn left early in the third quarter. His replacement, Tony Hills, was activated Saturday from the practice squad after being with the Colts for 19 days." http://www.jsonline.com/...s/packers/173026821.html

Luck was sacked 4 times, all in the 1st half. Neal did a great job getting his. No other DL got a sack. Only 4 QB hits and only 5 tackles between the 5 that played, that includes Raji. Everybody disappeared in the 2nd half. By rights, this group of Pick, Worthy, Neal and Wilson should have buried Luck in the 2nd half. It didn't happen. Seems we lose every time we keep Daniels inactive. I was hoping Ted would keep more beef here. Instead, he went pretty thin on our DL. Now, when a guy like Raji goes down, we have no back up. Makes no sense to me.

The DL is just one group that underperformed in my opinion. There is bigger blame to go around, but being a team game, they cannot just disappear for an entire half and expect their team to win.

Of course we'd love to see our D line get as many sacks as possible, but I guess what I'm saying is that paying attention to numbers too much can be deceiving. If you look at Clay Matthews' numbers last year alone without watching a game, you'd think he stunk it up. Having watched or listened to every game though, it's obvious that nobody in the front 7 and arguably the entire defense made more of an impact than Matthews. We're overloaded with talent, especially pass-rushing talent at linebacker. Our D-Line could certainly be better, but even if we had 3 Rajis up front, I would expect our linebackers to get at least 3x the sacks that the D line does. All the line needs to do is eat up blockers and push them in the quarterback's face. Once Raji went out we had no push upfront, nobody that demanded attention. This is indeed a problem, but you can't just chalk it up to the D line. We let Reggie Wayne tear us apart without even THINKING about double or triple covering him (Yet we thought we needed to double and triple Randy Moss earlier this year), the DBs dropped 4 or 5 picks that ranged from easy to moderately difficult that easily could have swung this game at least 7 points, probably more.

It was a complete team failure on defense, excluding maybe the linebackers, and the Offense didn't adjust.

Of course we'd love to see our D line get as many sacks as possible, but I guess what I'm saying is that paying attention to numbers too much can be deceiving. If you look at Clay Matthews' numbers last year alone without watching a game, you'd think he stunk it up. Having watched or listened to every game though, it's obvious that nobody in the front 7 and arguably the entire defense made more of an impact than Matthews. We're overloaded with talent, especially pass-rushing talent at linebacker. Our D-Line could certainly be better, but even if we had 3 Rajis up front, I would expect our linebackers to get at least 3x the sacks that the D line does. All the line needs to do is eat up blockers and push them in the quarterback's face. Once Raji went out we had no push upfront, nobody that demanded attention. This is indeed a problem, but you can't just chalk it up to the D line. We let Reggie Wayne tear us apart without even THINKING about double or triple covering him (Yet we thought we needed to double and triple Randy Moss earlier this year), the DBs dropped 4 or 5 picks that ranged from easy to moderately difficult that easily could have swung this game at least 7 points, probably more.

It was a complete team failure on defense, excluding maybe the linebackers, and the Offense didn't adjust.

Absolutely, complete team failure. As I mentioned, there is bigger blame to go around than on the DL, but those guys did get handled in the 2nd half against their 2nd/3rd string OGs and C. The O certainly is not helping the D - and that is 5 weeks, uh, running. Really poor word choice there by me... ugh. We are not controlling anything with our offense.

The dominant teams in this league can run the football, contrary to what some say here. Probably the hottest team in the NFL is SF, and Alex Smith just had his 3rd 300 + yd passing day in 8 seasons. They run. So do the Patriots, throwing down another W with 200+ yds rushing. Haven't checked most leading teams, but I would venture ATL and HOU are doing just fine running the football.

Also, key drops by Finley are really starting to get to me as a fan. Last week I stuck up for him in the stands at Lambeau when the DB made a great play to knock it away. Two ladies behind us going off on him when it wasn't his fault. Nonetheless, there are a ton of other drops he is responsible for that are killing drives. Super frustrating.

Lots of blame to go around, adding to the perception that maybe we are mediocre. The Packers are doing nothing special, and need a kick in the ass. All of them.

Absolutely, complete team failure. As I mentioned, there is bigger blame to go around than on the DL, but those guys did get handled in the 2nd half against their 2nd/3rd string OGs and C. The O certainly is not helping the D - and that is 5 weeks, uh, running. Really poor word choice there by me... ugh. We are not controlling anything with our offense.

The dominant teams in this league can run the football, contrary to what some say here. Probably the hottest team in the NFL is SF, and Alex Smith just had his 3rd 300 + yd passing day in 8 seasons. They run. So do the Patriots, throwing down another W with 200+ yds rushing. Haven't checked most leading teams, but I would venture ATL and HOU are doing just fine running the football.

Also, key drops by Finley are really starting to get to me as a fan. Last week I stuck up for him in the stands at Lambeau when the DB made a great play to knock it away. Two ladies behind us going off on him when it wasn't his fault. Nonetheless, there are a ton of other drops he is responsible for that are killing drives. Super frustrating.

Lots of blame to go around, adding to the perception that maybe we are mediocre. The Packers are doing nothing special, and need a kick in the ass. All of them.

Did Finley have more than one this week? I remember one, but it wasn't bad as DD's which was an easy one. Overall, it didn't seem like we had the dropsies this week on offense... We just didn't get open, and when we ran the ball more often than not it was to the outside where we haven't been effective in a loooong time.

One MAJOR issue I haven't seen anybody bring up: Is it just me, or have teams been getting loads of interior penetration on field goals and extra points in every game? Especially when faced with two long FGs, you wonder if that played at all into Crosby's approach or if it got in his head that if he kicked it too low it might get blocked.

The dominant teams in this league can run the football, contrary to what some say here.

You're absolutely right and I'm absolutely wrong. Last year's SB winner was the Giants who were ranked 32 out of 32 in running. the year before it was the Packers who were ranked 24 out of 32 in rushing. Before that, the Saints who were 6 out of 32 in rushing. Before that, it was the Steelers who were 23 out of 32 in rushing.

What do those teams have in common? All those teams led the NFL in rushing.

Well, there you go. There's our problem. Screw the pass. Let's lead the NFL in rushing so we can win the SB. :-k

Dexter_Sinister wrote up a really nice article last year about it and how it correlated with Super Bowl wins historically.

As for correlation between rushing success and winning, there is NONE WHATSOEVER. I checked the stats. It had as much correlation as how many times a Vikings fan picks his nose vs how successful people in the East Coast are at catching salmon.

You're absolutely right and I'm absolutely wrong. Last year's SB winner was the Giants who were ranked 32 out of 32 in running. the year before it was the Packers who were ranked 24 out of 32 in rushing. Before that, the Saints who were 6 out of 32 in rushing. Before that, it was the Steelers who were 23 out of 32 in rushing.

What do those teams have in common? All those teams led the NFL in rushing.

Well, there you go. There's our problem. Screw the pass. Let's lead the NFL in rushing so we can win the SB. :-k

Dexter_Sinister wrote up a really nice article last year about it and how it correlated with Super Bowl wins historically.

As for correlation between rushing success and winning, there is NONE WHATSOEVER. I checked the stats. It had as much correlation as how many times a Vikings fan picks his nose vs how successful people in the East Coast are at catching salmon.

Just a note. The giants, were last in rushing because they sucked earlier in the season, but then they went on their run, they were rushing for 109/gm. When the Packers went on their run in 2010. they were rushing for 103/gm.

Saints were not that good, but they also had the run game pick up at the end.

All three had a passing game, a run game and a defense all playing their best at the end.

You're absolutely right and I'm absolutely wrong. Last year's SB winner was the Giants who were ranked 32 out of 32 in running. the year before it was the Packers who were ranked 24 out of 32 in rushing. Before that, the Saints who were 6 out of 32 in rushing. Before that, it was the Steelers who were 23 out of 32 in rushing.

What do those teams have in common? All those teams led the NFL in rushing.

Well, there you go. There's our problem. Screw the pass. Let's lead the NFL in rushing so we can win the SB. :-k

Dexter_Sinister wrote up a really nice article last year about it and how it correlated with Super Bowl wins historically.

As for correlation between rushing success and winning, there is NONE WHATSOEVER. I checked the stats. It had as much correlation as how many times a Vikings fan picks his nose vs how successful people in the East Coast are at catching salmon.

zombie, c'mon man! You can't use stats like that when Ahmad Bradshaw and Brandon Jacobs were hurt most of the season. They both came back and were a big part of their run to winning the SB after their team went 9-7 regular season. They totaled 26 carries for 110 yds v. NE to win it all. For NE, conversely, Green-Ellis had just 10 carries for 44 yds. Welker had 2 carries for 21.

Go on believing we don't need 20+ carries per game to win. Whatever. I disagree.

We rank #20 overall. Oddly enough, both ATL and AZ have more attempts than we do (ranking #18 and 20 to our #22), helping to keep the opposing D honest. Take away Rodgers' scrambles and I would bet we are nearer to the bottom of the NFL.

Passer Rating Differential??? You don't think that has something to do with rushing to keep opposing defenses honest? I sure do.

As my research said, you still have to run the ball. Yes. That much we agree on.

However, you don't have to be good at it.

So yes, you should have rushing attempts. But as unintuitive as this sounds, the total yards don't matter.

Agree with what you said 99%--total yards aren't as important as rushing attempts, but I wouldn't say total yards don't matter.

The more success you have running the ball the more you'll distract the D from your passing game. If you're running it for 40 yds you'll get their attention a little more than if you're running it for -2, -4 per carry...

Agree with what you said 99%--total yards aren't as important as rushing attempts, but I wouldn't say total yards don't matter.

The more success you have running the ball the more you'll distract the D from your passing game. If you're running it for 40 yds you'll get their attention a little more than if you're running it for -2, -4 per carry...

They need to respect the run. If you're only getting 1, 2 yards per carry when they're loading up the box, oh well. If they're in nickel or dime and you can't run it for more than 2 or 3 on a regular basis, they don't NEED to respect it. You don't need to be great at the run, just okay. And in order to do that on a regular basis, you need to run it more than a dozen times per game.

They need to respect the run. If you're only getting 1, 2 yards per carry when they're loading up the box, oh well. If they're in nickel or dime and you can't run it for more than 2 or 3 on a regular basis, they don't NEED to respect it. You don't need to be great at the run, just okay. And in order to do that on a regular basis, you need to run it more than a dozen times per game.

That's the weird thing is you don't even have to be OK. You just have to run the ball.

You could actually have a mediocre rushing attack and win it all. Has happened time and time again.

That's why I used the word "unintuitive." You'd think by the way I'm worded the last thing I said that I'd be smoking crack, but my research shows otherwise. You only need attempts. Yards really don't matter.

This goes along what Shawn and I have been trying to get through to you for a couple years now. The attempts are what keeps a defense honest. A solid 60/40 pass/run ratio is very good for an offense as it opens up a lot of opportunities. Right now the Packers are being manhandled by a two high safety scheme because they are not worried about the second level being reached by a RB or a slant pass.

I'd rather see James Starks than Alex Green running the ball, even though Green has the potential to break one, he's often stuffed at the line for a loss. Starks nearly always gains at least a yard or two.

Until this team figures out how to be more balanced offensively and the QB drops his ego and takes the 5 yard easy out over the 25 yarder into double coverage ... mediocre is all we'll see.

This goes along what Shawn and I have been trying to get through to you for a couple years now. The attempts are what keeps a defense honest. A solid 60/40 pass/run ratio is very good for an offense as it opens up a lot of opportunities. Right now the Packers are being manhandled by a two high safety scheme because they are not worried about the second level being reached by a RB or a slant pass.

I'd rather see James Starks than Alex Green running the ball, even though Green has the potential to break one, he's often stuffed at the line for a loss. Starks nearly always gains at least a yard or two.

Until this team figures out how to be more balanced offensively and the QB drops his ego and takes the 5 yard easy out over the 25 yarder into double coverage ... mediocre is all we'll see.

I wish I could applaud twice!

I realize rule changes have made it much easier to pass in today's NFL, but that doesn't mean you throw out the basic tenants of the game.

Pound the fricken football +25 attempts by your RBs (QB scrambles don't count here) and I would say we win 9 out of 10 games. Especially with what that does to a defense, against our passing game. Without it, we clearly see we have no passing game.

I'm not saying that it's false, but multiple people keep saying that all you need to do is run the ball, yards don't matter a lick and that it's unintuitive but true. I see people dropping stats about poor rushing teams winning big, but does anybody have some examples of truly ineffective rushing teams (< 3 YPC) being successful? It's definitely unintuitive but I'm no more of an expert than anyone else here (and less of an expert than many), I'd just like a more in-depth explanation of WHY it works with some specific examples.

For example, if you're averaging 2 YPC 8 games in, why wouldn't an opposing defense want to play with an emphasis on passing every down unless it's an obvious running situation? Focus on nullifying your opponent's strengths, not their weaknesses. Yeah, if they're running it 20-25 times a game they might average 3-4 a carry if you don't respect the run but let them try to beat you on the ground and shut them down through the air. 75-100 yards on the ground isn't going to kill you if they're ineffective passing the ball and get minimal benefit from running the play action.

I'm not saying that it's false, but multiple people keep saying that all you need to do is run the ball, yards don't matter a lick and that it's unintuitive but true.

I had to stop reading here to clarify this. No one is saying yards mean nothing at all. What is being said is you don't need an elite (Adrian Peterson) RB to keep the defense honest. You need attempts, attempts that garner positive yardage. Even if you get 2 yards per attempt, that changes 1st and 10 to 2nd and 8 or 2nd and 6 to 3rd and 4.

Ideally you want a running back who gets 4 yards per attempt, never fumbles and has very sound protection while being above average at receiving out of the backfield.

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.